It's not all black and white. Stats present it that way, but they don't give you reasons for why is something like that.

In that text above I explained why I believe Harrison is a better player, and why he had less shots. And also mentioned a few times that tanking season where Klay had a chance to put up better numbers than he would otherwise. And, more importantly, get more experience.

32 wrote:LMAO, David Lee is most certainly not coming off the bench for Harrison Barnes.

All-NBA 3rd team PFs, fresh off an all-star season, being paid $14 million a year do not ride the pine so that a green horn SF (with 12 games of impressive basketball) can play the frankenstein stretch 4 in a full-time role and revert a legitimate Western Conference power back into a fringe playoff Nellieball team.

Jackson's too smart to do that.

Lol why you givin him a negative poster credit though. Can't tell if he's a troll or not, but if he isn't, then welcome to the board. But yeah, Lee is not coming off the bench. I don't think it's really a discussion. I just don't see it. That'd be pretty crazy.

I call em like I see em, bro.

Any endorsement of Nellieball gets a point dock from me. But I'm not above giving dude positive love if he brings some valuable insight to the table. But proclaiming Barnes will be starting over Lee? That's worthy of a knock, in my book.

In the end....Barnes will not start over Klay. If Barnes is to start, it will be over Iggy and that will not happen either. Eventually, Barnes will replace Lee or Iggy in the starting lineup, but not now; not with the acquisition of Toney Douglas, Jermaine O'Neal and Speights.

Guybrush wrote:It's not all black and white. Stats present it that way, but they don't give you reasons for why is something like that.

In that text above I explained why I believe Harrison is a better player, and why he had less shots. And also mentioned a few times that tanking season where Klay had a chance to put up better numbers than he would otherwise. And, more importantly, get more experience.

But never mind...I'll wait for the season to start.

Deferring more makes your efficiency go up, not lower. Klay put up a higher efficiency as the first option when we were tanking.

Guybrush wrote:It's not all black and white. Stats present it that way, but they don't give you reasons for why is something like that.

In that text above I explained why I believe Harrison is a better player, and why he had less shots. And also mentioned a few times that tanking season where Klay had a chance to put up better numbers than he would otherwise. And, more importantly, get more experience.

But never mind...I'll wait for the season to start.

Deferring more makes your efficiency go up, not lower. Klay put up a higher efficiency as the first option when we were tanking.

I believe Barnes will get there, but he's not close to Klay, yet.

It called tanking, you clearly don't understand that concept if you believe or want to create any sort of stat proof from it, the most important stat you can take from that is the warriors losing majority of the game. You are a numbers/stats guy but put things in perspective here.

Barnes will have a monster year, this coming season, even with all the new addition, he could easily be our go to guy next to Curry when we need crucial buckets because of the make up of his game. Regardless if he starts or not his impact on the team next year, his versatility will be key for us. Aside for Iggy, no other player has a more complete game than Barnes.

I am not sure that you understand efficiency, dude. Why would Klay shoot at a better clip when we are tanking? With Barnes as the fourth option at any one point, why would the basketball go in the hoop less if we are not tanking?

Klay's rookie year his TS percentage was 540. Barnes rookie year his TS percentage was 526.

Why would tanking have anything to do with Klay being more efficient?

Last edited by Blackfoot on Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Blackfoot wrote:I am not going to read through all of these wall of texts.

But it doesn't matter why Barnes differed. He scored less points with the same efficiency.

Exactly, you prove your point that you only see things in black/white, almost point less having a debate with a person with this type of disposition. To say it doesn't matter why he differed, a very important bases for the debate proves to me your inability for reason.

Blackfoot wrote:I am not going to read through all of these wall of texts.

But it doesn't matter why Barnes differed. He scored less points with the same efficiency.

Exactly, you prove your point that you only see things in black/white, almost point less having a debate with a person with this type of disposition. To say it doesn't matter why he differed, a very important bases for the debate proves to me your inability for reason.

Barnes can't be more the complete player if he scores less at the same rate and had a worse rookie year than Klay. by every metric. That's all that matters. And there is too much text on that page for me to care about.

Don't know what WSU had in mind, but basically, when you are tanking it means that pretty much is given that you will be losing almost every game. Your lineup is much weaker than opponent's and you even put in players who wouldn't play otherwise. In that situation guys who aren't starter material get some nice numbers, but mostly because their team starts losing early on, and the difference gets really big, so they score a lot towards the end of the game, when opponent team starts playing their scrubs. That is usually known as garbage time.

It's not like it's an uncommon thing, BF. Everyone knows what it is, and you do too, just don't wanna admit it that we were playing a lot of garbage minutes last year and that a lot of guys got better numbers than they normally would.

Harrison played in competitive season, where we went to the POs, and won the first round. He didn't have those garbage minutes playing against scrubs when his team was 20 points behind, at least not that much. And still their TS percentage is not that far off.

They would put up better traditional stats in that sense, but you can't pad your advanced metrics. You don't score better if you are trying to lose. That's absurd. Barnes getting to shoot less would help his ability to score efficiently, not hurt it.

Blackfoot wrote:They would put up better traditional stats in that sense, but you can't pad your advanced metrics. You don't score better if you are trying to lose. That's absurd.

Team (FO) is trying to lose, not the players on the court. They give their best, but they are just not good enough. Remember Gladness? Charles Jenkins played a lot, Tyler too...they had some good numbers as well during that time. How come they are not mentioned anywhere now? Yet, it seems only Klay's numbers during that time are actual numbers, and those guys were just playing garbage minutes.

And for the record, I don't mind debating like this, and I don't mind BF didn't read my long post, though I wish he did, cause I said a lot of things nicely there about why I believe some things and why some stats are inflated and some not.

It's fun...just it would be better if we could actually add opinions as well, not just stats without reasons why those are like that. Everything has it's own why. It's not written in stone and therefore it's like that.

Blackfoot wrote:They would put up better traditional stats in that sense, but you can't pad your advanced metrics. You don't score better if you are trying to lose. That's absurd.

Team (FO) is trying to lose, not the players on the court. They give their best, but they are just not good enough. Remember Gladness? Charles Jenkins played a lot, Tyler too...they had some good numbers as well during that time. How come they are not mentioned anywhere now? Yet, it seems only Klay's numbers during that time are actual numbers, and those guys were just playing garbage minutes.